[BostonCard]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=12941.msg131299#msg131299 date=1443400883]
You can take heart knowing that there are a lot more ex-NFL players who still do remember their names, and probably had a lot more than 12 concussions.

The science on CTE has a long ways to go to catch up to the way it's sometimes portrayed in the media.

You're a doctor and following this, right? That's something I've been wondering about, the headlines "90/93 EX-NFL PLAYERS HAVE BRAIN DISEASE!!!" sure do seem dramatic, but they're only testing people who are symptomatic, right? So the sample is super biased? I've definitely been wondering how much those studies actually do tell us.
[/quote]

I think you are talking about this study (I'm linking a lay source): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01...11142.html

As the article notes:

The study's brain specimens were donated by players and families who suspected the presence of the disease, presenting a skewed population.

So, in football players who go on to develop symptoms, in most cases, there is pathological evidence of CTE (you can't even necessarily make the link that the CTE is causal, as it could be a true but unrelated finding).  Even if it is causal, the real question is how large the denominator is.  How many people played football and never developed symptoms (or don't have CTE on autopsy).

As has been noted, while repeated concussions are likely the mechanism that results in CTE, there isn't clear correlation between the number and severity of concussions and whether someone gets CTE.  Some players have had multiple, repeated, severe concussions and never developed CTE while others have developed the disease despite relatively few and "minor" concussions.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=12941.msg131299#msg131299 date=1443400883]
You can take heart knowing that there are a lot more ex-NFL players who still do remember their names, and probably had a lot more than 12 concussions.

The science on CTE has a long ways to go to catch up to the way it's sometimes portrayed in the media.

You're a doctor and following this, right? That's something I've been wondering about, the headlines "90/93 EX-NFL PLAYERS HAVE BRAIN DISEASE!!!" sure do seem dramatic, but they're only testing people who are symptomatic, right? So the sample is super biased? I've definitely been wondering how much those studies actually do tell us.
[/quote]

I think you are talking about this study (I'm linking a lay source): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01...11142.html

As the article notes:

The study's brain specimens were donated by players and families who suspected the presence of the disease, presenting a skewed population.

So, in football players who go on to develop symptoms, in most cases, there is pathological evidence of CTE (you can't even necessarily make the link that the CTE is causal, as it could be a true but unrelated finding).  Even if it is causal, the real question is how large the denominator is.  How many people played football and never developed symptoms (or don't have CTE on autopsy).

As has been noted, while repeated concussions are likely the mechanism that results in CTE, there isn't clear correlation between the number and severity of concussions and whether someone gets CTE.  Some players have had multiple, repeated, severe concussions and never developed CTE while others have developed the disease despite relatively few and "minor" concussions.

BC